Thursday, July 26, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The Hairy Potter
Welcome back Friar. After a long absence, we have all three abbey members posting in the same week. This is great!
Just so everyone is clear, I have not read any of the Potter books. However my opinions are not of the nature that make others think I wear tight pants. To address the fair friar’s first question, yes, there is a difference between Tolkien and Rowlings, and no its not simply a difference in gender. To put it simply, Tolkien and Lewis are 32oz Porterhouses, with AuGratin potatoes and a side of broiled asparagus, finished off with a fine, mellow glass of Pinot Noir. Rowlings is like Slimfast. There is still nourishment there, but of a different degree. This is explained by my response to his next question.
The presuppositionalist will readily see the underpinnings of Christianity in Harry Potter. This is natural, and holds true for any good story. Christianity is the only worldview that works, that is consistent with nature, and our experiences in this world. Science and the demigods in white coats, followed by the relativists of our own generation will say differently in print. However, they will not, cannot live their life consistently, if they wish to live their life. As I said, the story of Scripture is the only story that works. Therefore, if you wish to write a fiction that works, key elements of the Story need to be intact. For instance, if you end a story with a nihilistic death, with nothing afterwards and no meaningful outcome, nobody is going to read the book. It simply wont sell. However, if there is some sort of resurrection following the death, whether actual or symbolic, there is a sense of rest, that resolves the tension of death. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand this. This is something that is hardwired into mankind. Only believers, however, have the resources to explain why this is so.
So back to Harry and Frodo. The reason why Potter works (again, at least from what I have heard) is because it borrows elements from the Real Story, such as good beating evil, though evil is real and nasty. To my knowledge, Rowlings does this unintentionally, mixing in her own thoughts. To use another analogy, the Potter books are like cupcakes made with the flour and baking powder of Christian thought, but mixed with the flavor and frosting of Rowlings own personal worldview. Here is where we Christians practice our discernment. Just because she uses two cups of truth, does not make the whole cupcake good. There might be some redeeming value in reading it, and it can simply be a lark in a park. But if we only see the two cups of truth and not the sprinkles of disbelief, we are setting ourselves up for a fall. This is simply a call for us to be aware. Reading Potter is not a sin, and we should read them. But I agree with the JF that a steady diet, and a narrow diet of Potteresque books is dangerous for the soul.
That said, a few comments on Tolkien and Lewis. I have not read Potter, but I have had a steady diet of these two greats. Similar subject matter, right? So what’s the difference? Tolkien and Lewis both wrote their fictions from within the paradigm of faith. Their own personal convictions were such that they believed Scripture and the Story of the Gospel to be the Story of all Stories. This inevitably shaped and molded their own hand as they wrote. This is clearly evident in reading their works. The more Truth they personally took in, the more Truth came out through their fingers. It is simple proportions. Rowlings swallows two cups truth, and puts out two cups truth. Tolkien and Lewis daily eat loaves and loaves of truth, and therefore put out rich and meaty works, overflowing with the richness of their diet. We cannot separate a work from its author, as some have tried. We cannot separate a creation from its creator. Therefore we must study both, as each informs us of the other. So the call is to read, but to read wisely and with a mind to engage and discover.
Just so everyone is clear, I have not read any of the Potter books. However my opinions are not of the nature that make others think I wear tight pants. To address the fair friar’s first question, yes, there is a difference between Tolkien and Rowlings, and no its not simply a difference in gender. To put it simply, Tolkien and Lewis are 32oz Porterhouses, with AuGratin potatoes and a side of broiled asparagus, finished off with a fine, mellow glass of Pinot Noir. Rowlings is like Slimfast. There is still nourishment there, but of a different degree. This is explained by my response to his next question.
The presuppositionalist will readily see the underpinnings of Christianity in Harry Potter. This is natural, and holds true for any good story. Christianity is the only worldview that works, that is consistent with nature, and our experiences in this world. Science and the demigods in white coats, followed by the relativists of our own generation will say differently in print. However, they will not, cannot live their life consistently, if they wish to live their life. As I said, the story of Scripture is the only story that works. Therefore, if you wish to write a fiction that works, key elements of the Story need to be intact. For instance, if you end a story with a nihilistic death, with nothing afterwards and no meaningful outcome, nobody is going to read the book. It simply wont sell. However, if there is some sort of resurrection following the death, whether actual or symbolic, there is a sense of rest, that resolves the tension of death. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand this. This is something that is hardwired into mankind. Only believers, however, have the resources to explain why this is so.
So back to Harry and Frodo. The reason why Potter works (again, at least from what I have heard) is because it borrows elements from the Real Story, such as good beating evil, though evil is real and nasty. To my knowledge, Rowlings does this unintentionally, mixing in her own thoughts. To use another analogy, the Potter books are like cupcakes made with the flour and baking powder of Christian thought, but mixed with the flavor and frosting of Rowlings own personal worldview. Here is where we Christians practice our discernment. Just because she uses two cups of truth, does not make the whole cupcake good. There might be some redeeming value in reading it, and it can simply be a lark in a park. But if we only see the two cups of truth and not the sprinkles of disbelief, we are setting ourselves up for a fall. This is simply a call for us to be aware. Reading Potter is not a sin, and we should read them. But I agree with the JF that a steady diet, and a narrow diet of Potteresque books is dangerous for the soul.
That said, a few comments on Tolkien and Lewis. I have not read Potter, but I have had a steady diet of these two greats. Similar subject matter, right? So what’s the difference? Tolkien and Lewis both wrote their fictions from within the paradigm of faith. Their own personal convictions were such that they believed Scripture and the Story of the Gospel to be the Story of all Stories. This inevitably shaped and molded their own hand as they wrote. This is clearly evident in reading their works. The more Truth they personally took in, the more Truth came out through their fingers. It is simple proportions. Rowlings swallows two cups truth, and puts out two cups truth. Tolkien and Lewis daily eat loaves and loaves of truth, and therefore put out rich and meaty works, overflowing with the richness of their diet. We cannot separate a work from its author, as some have tried. We cannot separate a creation from its creator. Therefore we must study both, as each informs us of the other. So the call is to read, but to read wisely and with a mind to engage and discover.
Christian Presupposition in Harry Potter?
As the hub-bub about the final installment, (at least in writing), is coming to an end, this Jolly Friar ponders on some things Potter. Views on this subject are as polarized as the ice-caps and no shortage of opinion exists among Christian circles. So for the sake of stirring up the pot here at the abbey, I'd like to pose the question to all those who ponder.
Is there a difference between Tolkien, Lewis, and Rowlings? (Besides the obvious male/female distinction.) Are the Harry Potter series of books the same as "Lord of the Rings" or "The Chronicles of Narnia"?
For instance, the hero in the "Lord of the Rings" is Frodo Baggins, the humble hobit, with great character and self-sacrifice. Is there a reasonable parallel between Frodo and Harry? Gandalf uses magic and so does Harry. Is there a difference between them? Some say that Tolkien is fine, but Rowlings is not. Why? or Why not?
Some assert that the Potter books makes no sense, or could not have been written without a Christian presupposition. See Harry Potter Meets Cornelius Van Til Obviously using the Potter series as a spring board or opportunity to discuss the important matters of eternity is something that all Christians should be prepared to do. We must engage the culture and be able to intelligently speak about what is going on. I don't know how many times I've heard people comment on things they haven't read or seen. That is just ridiculous. If you haven't read something or seen it, you have no business commenting on it as though you know what your talking about.
This humble Friar believes that Christians may freely read Potter, but should always be discerning and understand what is truly Biblical and what is not. Children should indeed find an interest in reading, but if all they read is Harry Potter and nothing else, is that interest in reading a real benefit? I've known many who said their Children are reading more due to reading Harry Potter, but when you examine the content of what they read, there is little redeeming value in the content. In the final analysis, it's not Harry that's the problem in that scenario, the problem is much broader than this simple minded friar's opinion and well beyond the scope of "To Harry or not to Harry," that is the question.
Is there a difference between Tolkien, Lewis, and Rowlings? (Besides the obvious male/female distinction.) Are the Harry Potter series of books the same as "Lord of the Rings" or "The Chronicles of Narnia"?
For instance, the hero in the "Lord of the Rings" is Frodo Baggins, the humble hobit, with great character and self-sacrifice. Is there a reasonable parallel between Frodo and Harry? Gandalf uses magic and so does Harry. Is there a difference between them? Some say that Tolkien is fine, but Rowlings is not. Why? or Why not?
Some assert that the Potter books makes no sense, or could not have been written without a Christian presupposition. See Harry Potter Meets Cornelius Van Til Obviously using the Potter series as a spring board or opportunity to discuss the important matters of eternity is something that all Christians should be prepared to do. We must engage the culture and be able to intelligently speak about what is going on. I don't know how many times I've heard people comment on things they haven't read or seen. That is just ridiculous. If you haven't read something or seen it, you have no business commenting on it as though you know what your talking about.
This humble Friar believes that Christians may freely read Potter, but should always be discerning and understand what is truly Biblical and what is not. Children should indeed find an interest in reading, but if all they read is Harry Potter and nothing else, is that interest in reading a real benefit? I've known many who said their Children are reading more due to reading Harry Potter, but when you examine the content of what they read, there is little redeeming value in the content. In the final analysis, it's not Harry that's the problem in that scenario, the problem is much broader than this simple minded friar's opinion and well beyond the scope of "To Harry or not to Harry," that is the question.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
O My...
My new favorite Modern Evangelical venture into Pop-Relevance:
T-shirt - "California rhymes with Jesus"
T-shirt - "California rhymes with Jesus"
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Jacques and Rich would be proud...
Ah, it's good to be back at the Abbey.
I took a bit of leave to wander North and refresh my soul with my family. How good to see that the dialogue continues to be gracious and stimulating - not to mention diverse! From a Redemptive-Historical overview of Matthew's gospel to John Mayer - good heavens! A wonderfully full-orbed appreciation of the good and the beautiful.
What's with the redesign, though?! One might conclude that someone has been reading too much Derrida and Rorty, what with all the deconstructionist adjustments to the Abbey's appearance! Right-justified titles. Inconsistent margins. You aren't wearing baggy pants sagging below your hips, too, are you? Maybe I just have a touch of OCD, but I had to tidy things up a bit...
I took a bit of leave to wander North and refresh my soul with my family. How good to see that the dialogue continues to be gracious and stimulating - not to mention diverse! From a Redemptive-Historical overview of Matthew's gospel to John Mayer - good heavens! A wonderfully full-orbed appreciation of the good and the beautiful.
What's with the redesign, though?! One might conclude that someone has been reading too much Derrida and Rorty, what with all the deconstructionist adjustments to the Abbey's appearance! Right-justified titles. Inconsistent margins. You aren't wearing baggy pants sagging below your hips, too, are you? Maybe I just have a touch of OCD, but I had to tidy things up a bit...
Saturday, July 14, 2007
The first step
Mr. Hyper Wop wanted some online resources. This is the best start. Through New Eyes, by James B. Jordan. It is a full size book, close to 350 pages. But it the best launching pad to thinking this way about Scripture. It is a free PDF file too. Enjoy.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Matthew
My wife and I had the privilege this past Lord's Day to sit under the teaching of our former professor, Dr. Leithart, at a local Church, near the Abbey. It was a pleasure to see him again, as we had not for over a year, and he was a friend, as well as an instructor. He spoke on Matthew. It is the substance of that sermon which I wish to share here at the table. So pull yourself a pint of something dark, drag one of those thick heavy chairs from the corner over to the table, and lean back. This might take a while.
Matthew’s aim, as is well understood, in writing his account of Jesus’ life, was to approach the Jewish nation with the Gospel. This is seen in his mentioning of Jewish customs, and not explaining them (23:5), and his constant use if the Old Testament, more than any other gospel (21 times; Mark, 15 times; Luke, 16 times; John, 11 times). Those are just the direct quotes. To understand Matthew well, a thorough knowledge of the whole Old Testament is required. This outline is one step in that direction.
Matthew begins his account of the Good News with a genealogy. This is extremely reminiscent of Genesis. To top it off the opening verse of Matthew, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ...” in the Greek reads, “The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ...” using the same Greek word that the LXX uses to give title to the book of Genesis. And in Genesis 5 (as well as nine other times throughout the book), the exact phrasing is used, βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων, compared with Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Matthew is the story of a new creation, and a new “ἀνθρώπων”, Jesus Christ, the Creator God Himself. These are His generations, His “beginnings”. In Genesis, whenever a genealogy is given, the descendents are listed. But here in Matthew, the ancestors are listed. Could it not be that Matthew is hinting that they too are descendants, starting with Christ, and then Abraham? Abraham is a new Adam, the father of faith. Being a new Adam, he himself was a son of God, as Adam was. Abraham is a son of God, and therefore a son of the Son. Here lies a difference between the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Matthew starts with Abraham, and lists fathers. Luke starts with Christ, and lists sons. Matthew and Luke are doing two separate things. Luke wants to pick up where Mark left off, “Truly this was the Son of God.” But Matthew wants to show Jesus in a different light than Luke, with a different perspective. Perhaps this is to highlight the unity of the Father and the Son, showing the Jews this was written for, that Jesus is the “I AM” who was before their father Abraham, and greater too. But now we are approaching the skinny branches. What is clear is a harkening back to the first book of the Bible. Matthew wants us to view this story as a new Beginning for a new world, a new order, a new covenant.
The story of Matthew follows closely the story of Israel through their long and sordid history. To begin with, there is the genealogy, then the birth of Christ, His descent into Egypt, and His return followed closely by His baptism. Here we see a recapitulation of the birth of the nation of Israel, their time in Egypt, their exodus from the land, and their “baptism” in the Red Sea. It follows perfectly. What comes next is a time in the wilderness. As Israel wandered for forty years, so Christ for forty days. Matthew sets the stage in the temptation of Christ, showing us that not only is this a new Israel, it is an obedient Israel. Jesus rejects Satan on all the points Israel failed on. The grumbled for bread, the tested the Lord, they desired the kingdoms of Egypt. Jesus proves faithful, when the nation of Israel did not.
The next three chapters of Matthew, 5-7, are a record of Jesus, standing on a mountain, proclaiming to the people a new Law. This is exactly what happens after Israel finished their time in the wilderness. They were brought to a mountain, and the Law was recounted to them, full with blessings and curses. This also alludes to Sinai when I AM gave the law. Here Christ, who is the great I AM, gives the law. At the end of chapter 7 Jesus says this, “And everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” This again, is a picture of the house of Israel. Jesus is alluding to their immanent and final fall, as he does more explicitly later in the book.
Then in chapter 10, Jesus gathers 12 disciples officially. He prepares them, and subsequently sends them out into the unconquered lands. This obviously looks like the 12 nations of Israel, being called out, equipped with the word in Deuteronomy, and sent into the promise land, to conquer it. Hence Matt 10:34, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Jesus is a new Joshua, coming to bring the sword against Satan and his followers. He is coming to bring the sword against death itself. This also fits with Jesus using the examples of the old Canaanite cities of Tyre and Sidon and Sodom in chapter 11. But the new Conquest of Canaan, is not one of extinction, it is one of redemption. In chapter 11, Jesus tells John the Baptist that “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” Canaan is to be given new life. In chapter 12 this is made explicit with the quotation from Isaiah, which ends with “and in His name the Gentiles will hope.” Jesus has come to bring hope to all who are spiritually Gentiles, coming to conquer them, and kill them, but in order that He might raise them up again.
The second half of chapter 12 leads the people to be amazed and wonder if this Man is the Son of David (12:23). The Pharisees think he is of Satan. Jesus responds by telling them that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. And then in chapter 13, Jesus, in concentrated form, is concerned with kingdoms, and explaining the kingdom of Heaven. This fits perfectly with Israel’s history. They conquer the land of Canaan, and not too long afterwards, desire a king. The kingdom of Israel grows to maturity under Solomon, the son of David. Jesus, here, in a very Solomon-like way, gives word-pictures of what the kingdom of Heaven is like. Jesus is the King of the Jews. In chapters 14-15 he acts like a king, providing for His people, bread for 5000 first, and then 4000. To confirm this, and to answer the question posed in 12:23, He is confirmed as the Son of David by the Canaanite woman (15:22). This comes to a climax in the confession of Peter in 16, and the transfiguration in 17. Christ is the ultimate King, the Son of God, and the three witness His glorious majesty. The King theme is carried through chapters 18-20. It reaches another climax in chapter 21, as the Son of David returns to Jerusalem, this time on the foal of a donkey. Jesus assumes the Kingship of Jerusalem, as He is labeled on the cross, and His disciples and worshipers flock to His side. Then in chapter 22 the parable of the wedding feast for the King’s son is given. This is an important parable on two accounts. One, the inclusion of the nations is explicit. Two, a wedding is coming. The Bride is alluded to, made up of every nation, and every tribe, and every tongue. The very final verses of 22 wrap up this Kingship section. It is where Jesus tests the Pharisee’s knowledge of the Psalms. “Who is the Christ,” He asks. “The son of David,” they reply. “How so, in light of Psalm 110:1?” He answers (paraphrase mine). They cant answer, and Matthew leaves it at that. The answer is of course, that the Lord is not simply a descendant of David, He is also the Father of David, and is Himself a greater David. All that David was points to Christ. Pharisees have no eyes to see this, however.
Then in chapters 23-25, Jesus takes a very different tone. He becomes like Jeremiah, standing outside Jerusalem, proclaiming its destruction. The kings of Israel were not faithful, and another exodus was coming. But this time it was back into exile and slavery. Jerusalem would be judged. Here in Matthew Jesus speaks of the final judgment to come on Jerusalem, a judgment that would abolish the old ways, and establish the new. This judgment would bring about a time when the Priest, the King, and the Prophet were all found in one Man, the God-man, the Son of David, the King of Creation, the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. The second Moses, the second Joshua, the second Solomon, the second Jeremiah, has come and He is the true Israel, the true seed of Abraham. He has come to make disciples out the rocks of the earth.
Following the prophecy of exile, Jesus Himself enacts Israel’s death. He Himself experiences the departure of God the Father, as in Ezekiel 10. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” He experiences the death of Israel, for Israel. But this death is a death of deeper magic. This is a death which brings the death of death. Faithful Israel is brought to life, and is Life Himself, never to die again. Thus we have in chapter 28, the rest of the story. The Old Testament leaves us unsure of Israel’s future. They come home from exile, but are still a mess. They need a lasting death, the death of something greater than bulls and goats. This finds its fulfillment in the Resurrection.
To end it all, Matthew copies the final verses of the Hebrew Scriptures which are found at the end of 2 Chronicles 36. They read, “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, ‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the Lord his God be with him. Let him go up.’” Does this have a familiar ring? Jesus final words in Matthew, and only in Matthew mind you, are, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Jesus, here, is a greater Cyrus who has been given power and authority and sends his people out, with the purpose of establishing something. The old Cyrus only has authority on earth, where the new Cyrus has authority over heaven and earth. The old Cyrus tells them to establish a specific house in Jerusalem, whereas the new Cyrus tells his disciples to establish a new Jerusalem. Both declare that the Lord their God will be with them, and in the second case, the Lord their God is the one telling them that He Himself will be with them, lo, to the end of the age.
Matthew, with these thoughts in mind, is basically a recapitulation of the entire history of Israel, starting from the Garden. It is structured in such a way that we might catch this connection, and witness the new Israel Himself, live as the old Israel was supposed to. In so doing, this new Israel redeems His bride. He breaks down the walls of nationality, conquering the gentiles by baptizing them and teaching them to obey all that He has commanded. This is the telos of faithfulness. This is the telos of Christ. Here is our call to go.
Again, many thanks to Dr. Leithart for his thoughts and insights. May we all seek to approach Scripture with Scripture in mind. That is the best hermeneutic.
Matthew’s aim, as is well understood, in writing his account of Jesus’ life, was to approach the Jewish nation with the Gospel. This is seen in his mentioning of Jewish customs, and not explaining them (23:5), and his constant use if the Old Testament, more than any other gospel (21 times; Mark, 15 times; Luke, 16 times; John, 11 times). Those are just the direct quotes. To understand Matthew well, a thorough knowledge of the whole Old Testament is required. This outline is one step in that direction.
Matthew begins his account of the Good News with a genealogy. This is extremely reminiscent of Genesis. To top it off the opening verse of Matthew, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ...” in the Greek reads, “The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ...” using the same Greek word that the LXX uses to give title to the book of Genesis. And in Genesis 5 (as well as nine other times throughout the book), the exact phrasing is used, βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων, compared with Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Matthew is the story of a new creation, and a new “ἀνθρώπων”, Jesus Christ, the Creator God Himself. These are His generations, His “beginnings”. In Genesis, whenever a genealogy is given, the descendents are listed. But here in Matthew, the ancestors are listed. Could it not be that Matthew is hinting that they too are descendants, starting with Christ, and then Abraham? Abraham is a new Adam, the father of faith. Being a new Adam, he himself was a son of God, as Adam was. Abraham is a son of God, and therefore a son of the Son. Here lies a difference between the two genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Matthew starts with Abraham, and lists fathers. Luke starts with Christ, and lists sons. Matthew and Luke are doing two separate things. Luke wants to pick up where Mark left off, “Truly this was the Son of God.” But Matthew wants to show Jesus in a different light than Luke, with a different perspective. Perhaps this is to highlight the unity of the Father and the Son, showing the Jews this was written for, that Jesus is the “I AM” who was before their father Abraham, and greater too. But now we are approaching the skinny branches. What is clear is a harkening back to the first book of the Bible. Matthew wants us to view this story as a new Beginning for a new world, a new order, a new covenant.
The story of Matthew follows closely the story of Israel through their long and sordid history. To begin with, there is the genealogy, then the birth of Christ, His descent into Egypt, and His return followed closely by His baptism. Here we see a recapitulation of the birth of the nation of Israel, their time in Egypt, their exodus from the land, and their “baptism” in the Red Sea. It follows perfectly. What comes next is a time in the wilderness. As Israel wandered for forty years, so Christ for forty days. Matthew sets the stage in the temptation of Christ, showing us that not only is this a new Israel, it is an obedient Israel. Jesus rejects Satan on all the points Israel failed on. The grumbled for bread, the tested the Lord, they desired the kingdoms of Egypt. Jesus proves faithful, when the nation of Israel did not.
The next three chapters of Matthew, 5-7, are a record of Jesus, standing on a mountain, proclaiming to the people a new Law. This is exactly what happens after Israel finished their time in the wilderness. They were brought to a mountain, and the Law was recounted to them, full with blessings and curses. This also alludes to Sinai when I AM gave the law. Here Christ, who is the great I AM, gives the law. At the end of chapter 7 Jesus says this, “And everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” This again, is a picture of the house of Israel. Jesus is alluding to their immanent and final fall, as he does more explicitly later in the book.
Then in chapter 10, Jesus gathers 12 disciples officially. He prepares them, and subsequently sends them out into the unconquered lands. This obviously looks like the 12 nations of Israel, being called out, equipped with the word in Deuteronomy, and sent into the promise land, to conquer it. Hence Matt 10:34, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Jesus is a new Joshua, coming to bring the sword against Satan and his followers. He is coming to bring the sword against death itself. This also fits with Jesus using the examples of the old Canaanite cities of Tyre and Sidon and Sodom in chapter 11. But the new Conquest of Canaan, is not one of extinction, it is one of redemption. In chapter 11, Jesus tells John the Baptist that “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” Canaan is to be given new life. In chapter 12 this is made explicit with the quotation from Isaiah, which ends with “and in His name the Gentiles will hope.” Jesus has come to bring hope to all who are spiritually Gentiles, coming to conquer them, and kill them, but in order that He might raise them up again.
The second half of chapter 12 leads the people to be amazed and wonder if this Man is the Son of David (12:23). The Pharisees think he is of Satan. Jesus responds by telling them that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. And then in chapter 13, Jesus, in concentrated form, is concerned with kingdoms, and explaining the kingdom of Heaven. This fits perfectly with Israel’s history. They conquer the land of Canaan, and not too long afterwards, desire a king. The kingdom of Israel grows to maturity under Solomon, the son of David. Jesus, here, in a very Solomon-like way, gives word-pictures of what the kingdom of Heaven is like. Jesus is the King of the Jews. In chapters 14-15 he acts like a king, providing for His people, bread for 5000 first, and then 4000. To confirm this, and to answer the question posed in 12:23, He is confirmed as the Son of David by the Canaanite woman (15:22). This comes to a climax in the confession of Peter in 16, and the transfiguration in 17. Christ is the ultimate King, the Son of God, and the three witness His glorious majesty. The King theme is carried through chapters 18-20. It reaches another climax in chapter 21, as the Son of David returns to Jerusalem, this time on the foal of a donkey. Jesus assumes the Kingship of Jerusalem, as He is labeled on the cross, and His disciples and worshipers flock to His side. Then in chapter 22 the parable of the wedding feast for the King’s son is given. This is an important parable on two accounts. One, the inclusion of the nations is explicit. Two, a wedding is coming. The Bride is alluded to, made up of every nation, and every tribe, and every tongue. The very final verses of 22 wrap up this Kingship section. It is where Jesus tests the Pharisee’s knowledge of the Psalms. “Who is the Christ,” He asks. “The son of David,” they reply. “How so, in light of Psalm 110:1?” He answers (paraphrase mine). They cant answer, and Matthew leaves it at that. The answer is of course, that the Lord is not simply a descendant of David, He is also the Father of David, and is Himself a greater David. All that David was points to Christ. Pharisees have no eyes to see this, however.
Then in chapters 23-25, Jesus takes a very different tone. He becomes like Jeremiah, standing outside Jerusalem, proclaiming its destruction. The kings of Israel were not faithful, and another exodus was coming. But this time it was back into exile and slavery. Jerusalem would be judged. Here in Matthew Jesus speaks of the final judgment to come on Jerusalem, a judgment that would abolish the old ways, and establish the new. This judgment would bring about a time when the Priest, the King, and the Prophet were all found in one Man, the God-man, the Son of David, the King of Creation, the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth. The second Moses, the second Joshua, the second Solomon, the second Jeremiah, has come and He is the true Israel, the true seed of Abraham. He has come to make disciples out the rocks of the earth.
Following the prophecy of exile, Jesus Himself enacts Israel’s death. He Himself experiences the departure of God the Father, as in Ezekiel 10. “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” He experiences the death of Israel, for Israel. But this death is a death of deeper magic. This is a death which brings the death of death. Faithful Israel is brought to life, and is Life Himself, never to die again. Thus we have in chapter 28, the rest of the story. The Old Testament leaves us unsure of Israel’s future. They come home from exile, but are still a mess. They need a lasting death, the death of something greater than bulls and goats. This finds its fulfillment in the Resurrection.
To end it all, Matthew copies the final verses of the Hebrew Scriptures which are found at the end of 2 Chronicles 36. They read, “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, ‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the Lord his God be with him. Let him go up.’” Does this have a familiar ring? Jesus final words in Matthew, and only in Matthew mind you, are, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Jesus, here, is a greater Cyrus who has been given power and authority and sends his people out, with the purpose of establishing something. The old Cyrus only has authority on earth, where the new Cyrus has authority over heaven and earth. The old Cyrus tells them to establish a specific house in Jerusalem, whereas the new Cyrus tells his disciples to establish a new Jerusalem. Both declare that the Lord their God will be with them, and in the second case, the Lord their God is the one telling them that He Himself will be with them, lo, to the end of the age.
Matthew, with these thoughts in mind, is basically a recapitulation of the entire history of Israel, starting from the Garden. It is structured in such a way that we might catch this connection, and witness the new Israel Himself, live as the old Israel was supposed to. In so doing, this new Israel redeems His bride. He breaks down the walls of nationality, conquering the gentiles by baptizing them and teaching them to obey all that He has commanded. This is the telos of faithfulness. This is the telos of Christ. Here is our call to go.
Again, many thanks to Dr. Leithart for his thoughts and insights. May we all seek to approach Scripture with Scripture in mind. That is the best hermeneutic.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Diamond in the Rough
Every once in a great while, a piece of pure pop art hits on a grain of truth, and simply knocks it out of the ballpark. One such moment is found in John Mayer’s new hit song “Gravity.” Mayer is known for a deeper, more thoughtful lyric than his contemporaries, and is also quite deft at metaphor, something we here at the Abbey are in favor of. The song reads as such, with a simple beat, and an uncomplicated progression played smoothly on the guitar.
Gravity is working against me
And gravity wants to bring me down
Oh I'll never know what makes this man
With all the love that his heart can stand
Dream of ways to throw it all away
Oh Gravity is working against me
And gravity wants to bring me down
Oh twice as much ain’t twice as good
And can't sustain like a one half could
It's wanting more
That's gonna send me to my knees
Oh gravity, stay the hell away from me
And gravity has taken better men than me (Now how can that be?)
Just keep me where the light is
Just keep me where the light is
Just keep me where the light is
Just keep me where the light is
Ohh.. where the light is!
The first thing of note is the title/first word of the song: gravity. This word is a metaphor for nature, unhindered, unconquered. Gravity normally is an outside force working externally. Throughout this song however, it seems to take on a inward role, something inside the singer, working contra to the desires of the singer. It is “working against me” and it “wants to bring me down.”
The inwardness of this ‘gravity’ becomes clearer as the next stanza is sung. “This man…dream[s] of ways to throw it all away.” Those dreams are coming from the inside, and are not a product of external influences. Note the way Mayer describes the affect of this inward gravity: “I’ll never know what makes this man with all the love that his heart can stand dream of ways to throw it all away.” He hits our human nature square on the head, and speaks clearer truth than most Christians have the guts to even think, and does so unaware (to my knowledge) of our natural state of rebellion in Adam. We have been given far more than we could ever ask or think, and what is our natural response, apart from the grace of Christ? Throw it all away, hoping that we can find something more fulfilling in that pile of crap over there. We receive the God of all the heavens and earth, and despise Him so much, that we bow to the ‘more sacred’ gods of wood, stone, and TV.
The next stanza is an insightful note on our contemporary culture. “Twice as much ain’t twice as good, and can’t sustain like one half could. Its wanting more that’s gonna send me to my knees.” Our culture is a culture of gluttony. Gluttony concerns everything, not just food. Gluttony of every appetite: entertainment, sexual, financial, etc. We want it all, and then supersized. We are gluttons, hard and fast (actually more squishy and slow). We seriously think that more is always, and without exception, better. If one portion was good, two is better. If one woman was good, two is better. If one house was good, two is better. To hell with the cost. To hell with the consequences. Damn the torpedos! Full steam ahead! We are a thoughtless, futureless society. We have no notion of heritage or legacy. How do we live so that our children and children’s children live well? Does it matter how we live? Are those generations effected by our present actions? What is this ‘generation’ that you speak of? What is this notion of cause and effect? These are foreign concepts to my modern mind. Legacy? Isn’t that an SUV or something? Do not get me wrong. I am not on some neo-modern hippie crusade, proclaiming the barefooted good news of dreadlocked organic living. There is just one simple concept that is totally lost on this irresponsible, self-serving generation. That simple concept brings to mind the first command ever given us: stewardship. But that takes too much thought, work, selflessness (fill in the blank with your favorite virtue). That takes learning from those who have gone before, and caring for those who come after. But we have no thought of the past, and no hope in the future. We are a bastard generation, fathering another bastard generation.
The final lines show the fullest amount of common grace found in this song. Even the devil’s own become an unwitting prophet, declaring the way of truth. “Just keep me where the light is.” I doubt Mayer knows the fullest meaning of this phrase (may God grant that he someday will). Our only hope of salvation from this downward spiral is the Light Himself. This becomes our prayer, “Just keep us where the light is.” Who will accomplish this? Gravity? We have seen his trajectory. Furthermore, gravity resides within. Here Mayer makes his greatest insight, wittingly or not. Help must come. And help, in order to come, must come from outside. The line itself is addressing something/someone outside of the speaker. On top of that, help must come from something/someone in which/whom this ‘gravity’ does not reside.
Our only hope is Light Himself. Light is not affected by gravity. Light does not regard gravity as too great a foe. In fact Light comes to conquer gravity. We could almost say that Light is sent by the Sun for just such an errand.
Come Lord Light, keep us where you are.
Gravity is working against me
And gravity wants to bring me down
Oh I'll never know what makes this man
With all the love that his heart can stand
Dream of ways to throw it all away
Oh Gravity is working against me
And gravity wants to bring me down
Oh twice as much ain’t twice as good
And can't sustain like a one half could
It's wanting more
That's gonna send me to my knees
Oh gravity, stay the hell away from me
And gravity has taken better men than me (Now how can that be?)
Just keep me where the light is
Just keep me where the light is
Just keep me where the light is
Just keep me where the light is
Ohh.. where the light is!
The first thing of note is the title/first word of the song: gravity. This word is a metaphor for nature, unhindered, unconquered. Gravity normally is an outside force working externally. Throughout this song however, it seems to take on a inward role, something inside the singer, working contra to the desires of the singer. It is “working against me” and it “wants to bring me down.”
The inwardness of this ‘gravity’ becomes clearer as the next stanza is sung. “This man…dream[s] of ways to throw it all away.” Those dreams are coming from the inside, and are not a product of external influences. Note the way Mayer describes the affect of this inward gravity: “I’ll never know what makes this man with all the love that his heart can stand dream of ways to throw it all away.” He hits our human nature square on the head, and speaks clearer truth than most Christians have the guts to even think, and does so unaware (to my knowledge) of our natural state of rebellion in Adam. We have been given far more than we could ever ask or think, and what is our natural response, apart from the grace of Christ? Throw it all away, hoping that we can find something more fulfilling in that pile of crap over there. We receive the God of all the heavens and earth, and despise Him so much, that we bow to the ‘more sacred’ gods of wood, stone, and TV.
The next stanza is an insightful note on our contemporary culture. “Twice as much ain’t twice as good, and can’t sustain like one half could. Its wanting more that’s gonna send me to my knees.” Our culture is a culture of gluttony. Gluttony concerns everything, not just food. Gluttony of every appetite: entertainment, sexual, financial, etc. We want it all, and then supersized. We are gluttons, hard and fast (actually more squishy and slow). We seriously think that more is always, and without exception, better. If one portion was good, two is better. If one woman was good, two is better. If one house was good, two is better. To hell with the cost. To hell with the consequences. Damn the torpedos! Full steam ahead! We are a thoughtless, futureless society. We have no notion of heritage or legacy. How do we live so that our children and children’s children live well? Does it matter how we live? Are those generations effected by our present actions? What is this ‘generation’ that you speak of? What is this notion of cause and effect? These are foreign concepts to my modern mind. Legacy? Isn’t that an SUV or something? Do not get me wrong. I am not on some neo-modern hippie crusade, proclaiming the barefooted good news of dreadlocked organic living. There is just one simple concept that is totally lost on this irresponsible, self-serving generation. That simple concept brings to mind the first command ever given us: stewardship. But that takes too much thought, work, selflessness (fill in the blank with your favorite virtue). That takes learning from those who have gone before, and caring for those who come after. But we have no thought of the past, and no hope in the future. We are a bastard generation, fathering another bastard generation.
The final lines show the fullest amount of common grace found in this song. Even the devil’s own become an unwitting prophet, declaring the way of truth. “Just keep me where the light is.” I doubt Mayer knows the fullest meaning of this phrase (may God grant that he someday will). Our only hope of salvation from this downward spiral is the Light Himself. This becomes our prayer, “Just keep us where the light is.” Who will accomplish this? Gravity? We have seen his trajectory. Furthermore, gravity resides within. Here Mayer makes his greatest insight, wittingly or not. Help must come. And help, in order to come, must come from outside. The line itself is addressing something/someone outside of the speaker. On top of that, help must come from something/someone in which/whom this ‘gravity’ does not reside.
Our only hope is Light Himself. Light is not affected by gravity. Light does not regard gravity as too great a foe. In fact Light comes to conquer gravity. We could almost say that Light is sent by the Sun for just such an errand.
Come Lord Light, keep us where you are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)